Author: RaptorPersecutionUK

SNH notifies two estates of intention to restrict General Licences

SNH GL restrictionIn July 2013, the then Environment Minister, Paul Wheelhouse MSP announced a series of new measures to tackle the raptor killers. One of these new measures was to give SNH the authority to issue a (temporary) restriction order on the use of General Licences on land where evidence of raptor crime was apparent. The restriction order could be applied retrospectively to incidents that had taken place since 1st January 2014. (See here to read SNH’s framework for implementing such restrictions).

In October 2014, this measure was finally rolled out and we blogged about these General Licence restriction orders, outlining our view on the pros and cons of this approach (see here).

Since then we’ve wondered a number of times about when we might see the first restriction order, because let’s face it, there have been numerous opportunities to apply it. In January this year we asked SNH whether a restriction order had been applied to an estate where a poisoned red kite had been found in July 2014 (see here). A response came back from SNH in February that said no restriction orders had yet been implemented for this case or for any other case (see here).

Roll forward six months to August 2015 (two years after Wheelhouse first announced this new measure) and an FoI was submitted to SNH to find out if any progress has been made. It seems it has.

According to SNH’s response, two (unnamed) estates have been notified of SNH’s intention to restrict the use of General Licences; one was notified on 11th June 2015 and the other on 22nd July 2015. As predicted, and judging by (a) the number of letters SNH says it has sent in relation to these two estates (five), and (b) the length of time that has elapsed since the notification letters were sent, it would appear that both estates have challenged the notification of intent. This was to be expected, of course, especially as SNH can use the civil burden of proof rather than the criminal burden of proof as evidence of suspected raptor crime.

It’ll be interesting to see how this all pans out.

In the meantime, here is SNH’s response to the FoI questions:

How many letters of intention to restrict the use of a General Licence has SNH issued to date?

SNH has issued five letters notifying our intention to restrict the use of General Licences on certain areas of land. These five letters relate to two specific proposed restriction areas.

The name of the estate(s) that has received a letter of intention to restrict the use of General Licences.

We have considered this part of your request very carefully, and we have concluded that we are unable to provide this information in response to your request.

The framework for implementing General Licence restrictions is set out on our website, http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1417398.pdf. Although letters have been issued, we have not reached final decisions on whether restrictions on the use of General Licences should be implemented in those cases. After we issue a notification letter, the recipient (the Affected Parties) has the opportunity to submit a response setting out any reasons why they consider that a restriction should not be imposed. SNH will review any submission before reaching a decision on whether or not a restriction should be imposed.

Whilst this decision making process is still underway we consider that it would be unfair to release the names of the estates/land holdings that have received letters. The Affected Parties have not yet had full opportunity to make representations, or for those representations to be considered. We are therefore withholding the names of the estates/land holdings under EIRs Regulation 10(5)(b) (The course of justice), and we have concluded that, in this case, it is in the public interest to do so.

At the end of the decision making process, where we recommend a restriction is imposed, the Decision Notice(s) will be published on our licensing web pages, http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/species-licensing/, and the information will be fully in the public domain.

The reason(s) given for the intention to restrict the use of General Licences on the landholding(s).

In each of the cases the reason has been that we have received evidence of wild birds being killed illegally, or that there have been attempts to take wild birds illegally either on that land or by persons responsible for managing that land.

The date(s) the letter(s) of intention was sent.

The notification letters were sent out on 11 June 2015 and 22 July 2015 for each respective proposed restriction area.

The start date and end date of the General Licence restriction period (in each case).

These cases are ongoing – no Decision Notice has been issued as of yet.

What measures will be taken to monitor compliance with any General Licence restriction order.

When a restriction is implemented this will mean that General Licences will not be permitted to be used on the land in question. This would mean that any control of wild birds on the land in question would be unlawful (unless covered by an individual licence). As is the case with any area of wildlife crime the policing of this would fall to the appropriate enforcement body, and particularly the Police. We would of course continue to engage with the Police and others in the event of a restriction being put in place to ensure that all were aware of the details of any restriction in this respect.

END

Case against gamekeeper William Curr, Glenogil Estate: part 2

Glenogil sign RPSCopyCriminal proceedings have continued against Scottish gamekeeper William Curr.

Curr, 22, is accused of several wildlife crimes alleged to have taken place on the Glenogil Estate in August and September 2014. His case was adjourned at Forfar Sheriff Court on 10th September 2015 and will continue on 8th October.

Previous blog about this case here.

SNH to investigate deployment of gas guns on grouse moors

Bird scarer 1 - CopyOn Wednesday last week (4th September) we encouraged blog readers to contact SNH and Natural England to ask whether they would provide guidance on the lawfulness of deploying gas gun bird scarers on grouse moors (see here).

SNH responded quickly (9th September) with the following statement:

SNH will soon be publishing a review of sustainable moorland management written on behalf of the SNH Scientific Advisory Committee, and a formal response to that report.  Although not raised in the preparation of the review report the issue of gas guns has since been raised.  We will be investigating the deployment of these scaring devices with regard to the law, and specifically with regard to recent guidance we have issued on Schedule A1 and 1A species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: here.  Depending on our investigations we may provide further guidance, as we did in June this year in relation to helicopter flights: here.

SNH’s prompt and positive response is welcomed. Now we just have to monitor the situation and ensure they follow up on their commitment.

Natural England has yet to respond.

Three more poisoned red kites

WT J 1 as I foundThe following press release has been issued today by FoRK (Friends of Red Kites) –

POISONING OF RED KITES CONDEMNED

Three red kites have been found illegally poisoned in a blow to efforts to re-establish a thriving population across north east England.

One found near a grouse moor died from Carbofuran poisoning despite the use of the chemical being banned in Britain since 2002. The two others were found together and died as a result of poisoning by Aldicarb, a widely-used pesticide which has been implicated in deliberate poisonings elsewhere in Britain.

The bodies of all three were recovered and sent for post-mortem examination after tip-offs from the public.

The three deaths, revealed by Friends of Red Kites (FoRK), the voluntary group set up to protect and monitor the population, brings the region’s total number of known kite casualties from illegal poisoning to ten in recent years.

FoRK has condemned the killings but fears that the known deaths are just the tip of the iceberg and that many more dead birds are never found. It believes that persistent persecution, mainly through illegal poisoned baits, is among factors preventing the birds from spreading from their core Derwent Valley sites.

The bird killed by Carbofuran was found near Edmundbyers, Co Durham. The two others were found at High Spen, Gateshead, and included a wing-tagged female from a nearby breeding site which had produced young for the previous four years.

Previous poisoning involved two kites found dead in Hexhamshire and a breeding pair killed near Whittonstall whose chicks then perished in the nest. Other local kites were found poisoned in Teesdale and Wharfedale, Yorkshire. Another bird, which moved to Scotland, was found poisoned in the Cairngorms. Other kites have been found in suspicious circumstances but have been dead too long for scientific examination.

Allan Withrington, FoRK Kite Welfare Officer, said: “These poisonings are appalling and totally unacceptable. Carbofuran has been illegal in this country for many years but is still apparently the poison of choice of those who illegally put out poisoned baits to target raptors, crows and foxes. 

Leaving poisoned baits in the open is not only illegal but completely indiscriminate as the deaths of many bird and animals, including dogs and cats, has shown over the years.

We will be continuing to do everything possible to expose those responsible and work with the police, farmers, landowners and other conservation organisations to protect the red kites and other species.”

The most recent available figures from the RSPB show that there were 76 confirmed cases of illegal poisoning in Britain in 2013, including 19 from Carbofuran and 5 from Albicarb. Twenty-one red kites were among the victims which also included buzzard, white-tailed eagle, golden eagle and marsh harrier. Raven, magpie, sparrowhawk and even a collared dove also died along with two dogs and two cats.

Britain’s single worst recorded wildlife poisoning incident occurred in April 2014 with red kites being the main victims. 16 kites and six buzzards were found dead near Inverness. Despite a major investigation by Police Scotland and rewards totalling £32,000 being offered no-one has been charged.

ENDS

There are a number of interesting facets to this press release. Firstly, no dates are given for when these birds were found poisoned. We can’t be certain, but the press release may refer to three poisoned kites that were discovered in Co Durham in 2014: two in November 2014 and one in December 2014, according to government statistics. It’s possible that the three kites mentioned in the above press release were poisoned this year, but the published government stats only cover the first quarter of 2015 (up until March) and no poisoned kites in Co Durham are present in those figures. These days we have to wait more than six months to find out what’s actually been going on more recently so if they were poisoned after March 2015 we might find out about it ‘officially’ sometime after Christmas.

The second interesting point about this press release is it has come from FoRK. Here’s how FoRK describe themselves:

The Friends of Red Kites (FoRK) is a constituted, membership-based, community organisation which was formed by volunteers in 2009 to continue to encourage an active interest in the conservation of the red kite population in Gateshead’s Lower Derwent Valley and to continue to monitor their health & welfare.

FoRK is the successor to the funded Northern Kites Project which was responsible for the re-introduction of 94 young red kites in the core area between 2004 – 2009. In 2006 red kites began to breed in the region for the first time after an absence of 170 years.

Interesting then that a voluntary, community-based organisation has issued this press statement, and not the police and not Natural England. Has FoRK issued this press statement because they’re tired of waiting for action by the authorities? Was there a police follow up? Was there a follow up by Natural England? If these three birds were poisoned in November and December 2014, why haven’t the police or Natural England said anything? Could their (apparent) silence / inaction have anything to do with the localities of the poisoned carcasses? Check out the village of Edmundbyers on a Google Earth map – see all those weird rectangular shapes on the hills surrounding the village? They’re the tell-tale muirburn strips (burnt heather) that indicate that this area is dominated by driven grouse moors.

Say no more.

Petition to ban driven grouse shooting – PLEASE SIGN HERE

Friends of Red Kites (FoRK) website here

Edmundbyers

 

Red kite dies after persecution incident ‘near Tomatin’

Reports have emerged this afternoon that a red kite has died after it was found injured ‘near Tomatin’ on 30 August 2015.

According to a BBC news article (here), ‘Police said its injuries did not appear to have been as a result of natural causes’.

According to an article in the P&J (here), ‘Early examinations of the bird have found its death is not due to natural causes’.

In other words, this kite has been illegally killed but apparently Police Scotland is ‘unable to disclose the nature of the bird’s injuries’ (according to the P&J). So the cause of death has not been revealed, and neither has the location where the injured kite was picked up, other than ‘near Tomatin’. Tomatin is in the heart of driven grouse moor country – just put it in to google maps and look at the amount of muirburn strips that surround the village – this region also has a long track record of raptor persecution on a par with other grouse moor regions such as the Angus Glens.

So, another example of an embarrassingly vague Police Scotland statement in relation to the illegal killing of yet another raptor. It’s the latest in a series of similar cryptic police statements relating to the illegal persecution of raptors:

In September 2010 the police issued a vague appeal for information following the discovery of an osprey in the Highlands that died from what they described as “deliberately inflicted injuries“. It was later reported that the bird had been shot (see here).

In June 2013 a similarly cryptic press release followed the discovery of a dead red kite in Aberdeenshire: “After recovery of the carcass, a post mortem was carried out. This revealed that the bird’s death was not by natural causes“. It was later reported the kite had been shot (see here).

In January 2014, we got more of the same after the discovery of a dead buzzard ‘near the village of Tomatin’. Ooh, that sounds familiar, doesn’t it? The press statement said: “Police said an examination of the buzzard suggested it had not died of natural causes” (see here). We still don’t know how it was killed.

In June 2014 there was another one, this time a hen harrier found dead near it’s nest in Muirkirk. The police said: “Whilst at this time we cannot divulge how the bird was killed, we do believe it was the result of a criminal act and we need to establish why this has happened” (see here and here). Guess, what? Turns out it had been shot (see here).

Police Scotland will claim that withholding information about the cause of the death is part of their investigative strategy, because it is ‘specialist knowledge’ that only the perpetrator and any potential witness will know. That’s a legitimate strategy, of course, but given the low likelihood of actually catching anyone for this type of offence it seems like a fairly pointless exercise. It will, though, allow the game shooting lobby to deny all knowledge and refute any suggestion that the bird was killed by anyone associated with that industry.

Marvellous.

So what do you reckon? Is the illegal killing of this red kite going to be the crime that finally jolts the Scottish Government in to taking the oft-promised ‘further action if necessary’? Probably not. We’re still waiting to hear the Minister’s response to a question we posed three weeks ago following the discovery of a shot buzzard in the Borders. We asked her how she defined ‘if necessary’? (see here). Her response should make for an interesting read.

Whatever she says, she really does need to start delivering something tangible, and fast.

Red kite photo by David Tomlinson

Countryside Alliance wants BBC to sack Chris Packham

NEVER-MIND-T-SHIRT-DESIGNThe Countryside Alliance has launched an attack on Chris Packham and is urging the BBC to sack him. The basis of their argument is that Chris, in their opinion, is ‘abusing his position’ as a BBC presenter to ‘promote an extreme agenda’ (see here).

Let’s just be clear. This is less to do with the Countryside Alliance’s concerns about BBC impartiality but more to do with them wanting to silence an articulate, thoughtful, well-informed and popular ‘celebrity’ to prevent him expressing views on wildlife crime (particularly hen harrier persecution) and animal welfare issues that just happen to be the polar opposite views of the CA, and thus are labelled by them as ‘extreme’.

It’s not the first time the Countryside Alliance has tried to silence those with opposing opinions. Last year they complained to the Charities Commission about the RSPB’s 2013 BirdCrime Report, claiming it was ‘deliberately misleading’ and ‘promoting an anti-shooting agenda’. Their complaint backfired spectacularly when the Charities Commission told the CA where to get off (see here).

This time, it’s the public telling the CA where to get off. A petition was launched last night in support of Chris Packham and has already attracted over 11,000 signatures from members of the public who admire and appreciate Chris’s principles. You can sign it HERE

And if you’re in the mood for petition-signing, here’s another one that’s deserving of your support: Ban Driven Grouse Shooting – sign it HERE

There’s a good piece in the Guardian today about why the BBC should treasure Chris Packham, not sack him (see here).

It’s easy to see why the Countryside Alliance is really going after Chris. His latest t-shirt design is the perfect response and can be downloaded here.

Kildrummy Estate: vicarious liability prosecution?

On 11th December 2014, Scottish gamekeeper (and SGA member) George Mutch was convicted of four wildlife crime offences that he’d committed on the Kildrummy Estate, Aberdeenshire in 2012 (see here).

On 12th January 2015, Mutch was given a four month custodial sentence for his crimes; the first gamekeeper to be jailed in the UK for killing raptors (see here).

Both his conviction and sentence were widely welcomed across the conservation community, not least because video evidence had been deemed admissible in this case and because the agencies involved in the investigation and prosecution had worked exceptionally hard to achieve these results.

Hopes were high that a subsequent vicarious liability prosecution would follow, especially when a journalist friend told us that Fiscal Tom Dysart had made a point of asking Mutch in court whether he’d received any training for the use of his traps, to which Mutch had replied, “No”. That response would indicate that a defence of ‘due diligence‘ wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny for anyone charged with being vicariously liable for Mutch’s crimes. All good so far, although Andy Wightman cast doubt over the feasibility of charging someone from Kildrummy Estate given the difficulty of establishing ownership there (read his blog here).

So seven months on, what’s happening now?

Well, it all gets a bit interesting around about now.  As we understand it, for offences committed under the Wildlife & Countryside Act, criminal proceedings MUST begin within three years from the date of the commission of the offence (two years in England & Wales). After three years, the case becomes ‘time-barred’ and it is no longer possible to prosecute.

Mutch was convicted of four offences, and the dates those offences were commissioned are as follows (info from COPFS press release, January 2015) –

  1. On 14 August 2012 & 15 August 2012, Mutch did intentionally or recklessly kill or take a wild bird, namely a goshawk.
  2. On 23 August 2012 and 24 August 2012, Mutch did intentionally or recklessly take a wild bird, namely a buzzard.
  3. On 28 August 2012, Mutch did intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take a wild bird, namely a goshawk.
  4. Between 6 August 2012 – 13 September 2012, Mutch did use a trap to catch two goshawks and a buzzard.

Pay close attention to those dates. The first three offences are now time-barred (unless someone has already been charged) because it is over three years since they took place. The final offence is not quite time-barred, but will be by this Sunday (13 Sept 2015).

So, two big questions:

  1.  Has somebody from Kildrummy Estate been charged for a vicarious liability prosecution for the first three offences, and if not, why not?
  2. Is the Crown Office intending to charge someone (before Sunday) from Kildrummy Estate for a vicarious liability prosecution for the fourth offence, and if not, why not?

This case is of huge public interest and we don’t think it unreasonable to be asking questions, especially when successive Environment Ministers keep telling us that the effectiveness of Government policy against the raptor killers will be measured by the success of approaches such as vicarious liability.

If, like us, you’re curious about what’s happening with this case, you can email the Crown Office and ask them. The usual response when we ask about criminal cases is ‘As this case is on-going it would be inappropriate to comment’. It’s a handy ‘get out’ option when the authorities want to keep the public in the dark. The Crown Office could legitimately respond like this in this case, if they’ve already charged somebody. However, if they haven’t charged anybody, then the case is now time-barred and therefore cannot be said to be ‘on-going’.

Let’s see how transparent and accountable they wish to be. Emails to Helen Nisbet, Head of Wildlife & Environmental Crime Unit, Crown Office & Procurators Fiscal Office: Helen.Nisbet@copfs.gsi.gov.uk

The intellectual capacity of a cabbage

There was an article in Country Life magazine recently (26th Aug edition) on the proposed plan (see here) to bolster the golden eagle population in southern Scotland. (Thanks to the contributor who sent us a copy).

The short piece included commentary from Dr Cat Barlow (the new project officer) and also a bit from everybody’s favourite ecological expert, Alex Hogg of the SGA:

‘Alex Hogg, Chairman of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association, believes that the large raptors [golden eagles] could threaten not only grouse, but, ironically, the endangered hen harrier. “Grouse cover a huge area and can stand the pressure of hunting, but hen harriers nest en masse and are thus particularly vulnerable. And white hares, one of the eagle’s favourite prey, only breed well in areas where foxes are controlled”, he points out. He adds: “I’m delighted about the idea of the golden-eagle release, but I’m worried there won’t be enough food supply. My overriding feeling is that if the golden eagle had wanted to settle in southern Scotland, it would have done so“‘.

My ‘overriding feeling’ is that Alex Hogg has the intellectual capacity of a cabbage.

How many “en masse nesting” hen harriers are there in southern Scotland? According to the most recent data available from the Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme, in 2013 one hundred hen harrier home ranges were checked across southern Scotland for occupancy. Of those 100, there were only 23 breeding attempts and of those, only 18 nests produced fledglings. Here are the data:

Dumfries & Galloway: 24 home ranges checked, 10 breeding attempts, 8 nests producing fledglings.

Lothian & Borders: 5 home ranges checked, 3 breeding attempts, 2 nests producing fledglings.

South Strathclyde: 71 home ranges checked, 10 breeding attempts, 8 nests producing fledglings.

As for a shortage of food, perhaps if the grouse moor gamekeepers in southern Scotland (and elsewhere) weren’t slaughtering mountain hares in their thousands (e.g. see here), in addition to the mass killing of other eagle prey items such as crows, stoats, weasels, fox cubs etc, Alex’s touching concern could be put to rest.

SGA attacks RSPB on false premise

Annie Langholm harrier shot April 2015Never ones to miss an opportunity to stick the boot in on the RSPB, those wildlife crime-fighting heroes at the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association have mis-kicked, again.

They’ve been whining in the media (Scottish Farmer, see here) about the timing of the RSPB’s press release relating to the discovery of a shot hen harrier called ‘Annie’ (see here).

As you’ll recall, Annie was a young satellite-tagged hen harrier from the Langholm project whose tag indicated she’d stopped moving in March this year (see here). Her corpse was discovered on a grouse moor in late April after several weeks of intensive moorland searches (by the RSPB) and the news of her death was published on 11th August, the day before the start of the grouse-shooting season, when everyone associated with driven grouse shooting is doing their level best to promote it as a sustainable, conservation-friendly tradition (ahem).

How inconsiderate of the RSPB to break this news on the day before the Inglorious 12th. How dare they inconvenience the grouse-shooting lobby like that. Shame on the RSPB for telling the world about another illegally killed raptor found on a grouse moor.

The thing is, the RSPB wasn’t in control of when the news was released.

When Annie’s body had been found (late April), it was submitted the very next day to the SAC Veterinary lab for post mortem. The post mortem results were not released to the RSPB until early August. The RSPB passed on the results to Police Scotland on 5th August. It was then Police Scotland’s call as to when the news was released. According to the article in Scottish Farmer (see here), the police asked the RSPB to sit on the news so that they (Police Scotland) could “crime” the incident, whatever that means. It was then decided, apparently after discussion with the Scottish Government (since when do they get involved with when crime details are released?!) that the news would be published on 11th August.

Instead of trying to smear and discredit the RSPB for publicising this crime, surely the SGA, as a co- member of the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime, should be (a) praising the RSPB for putting in the time and effort, at their own expense, in extreme weather conditions, to retrieve Annie’s corpse; (b) asking the SAC vet lab why it took over three months for the post mortem results to be made available; (c) praising the RSPB for preparing and publishing the press release; (d) focusing their condemnation on the criminal(s) responsible for killing this bird, who, with all probability, are members of the game-shooting industry; and (e) asking the RSPB and other members of PAW Scotland how they (SGA) can usefully contribute to help stop these killings?

Is that really too much to ask?

Gas guns on grouse moors: urgent guidance required

You may remember back in May this year we blogged about the deployment of propane gas gun bird scarers on the Leadhills (Hopetoun) Estate in South Lanarkshire (see here).

Bird scarer 1 - Copy

A month later, Mark Avery blogged about the deployment of propane gas guns on an unnamed grouse moor in the Scottish Borders and on another unnamed site in the Peak District National Park (see here).

It seemed they were being used with regularity across the uplands.

For those who don’t know, propane gas guns are routinely used for scaring birds (e.g. pigeons, geese) from agricultural crops – they are set up to deliver an intermittent booming noise and the audible bangs can apparently reach volumes in excess of 150 decibels. According to the Purdue University website, 150 decibels is the equivalent noise produced by a jet taking off from 25 metres away and can result in eardrum rupture. That’s quite loud!

We were interested in the deployment of these bird scarers in relation to (a) their proximity to Schedule 1 and 1A bird species [and thus any potential disturbance to these specially protected species] and (b) their use in designated Special Protection Areas [and thus any potential disturbance caused].

We assumed that the deployment of these gas guns would be subject to guidance and rigorous licensing controls by SNH (as they are the licensing authority for the Wildlife & Countryside Act (as amended)), particularly in relation to the hen harrier, which, as a Schedule 1A species, is “protected from harassment [including disturbance] at any time“, not just when it’s trying to breed (see here).

So an FoI was sent to SNH in June to ask for copies of all correspondence (during the last two years) between SNH and Scottish Land & Estates, and/or GWCT, and/or BASC, and/or Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association regarding the deployment of propane gas guns on grouse moors. As gas guns were clearly being deployed this year, we expected to receive a considerable amount of paperwork relating to SNH guidance on gas gun use.

How wrong were we!

In July, SNH responded by saying there had been “no direct correspondence” with any of the listed organisations in relation to the deployment of propane gas guns on grouse moors.

Hmm.

So it seems that SNH hasn’t issued any guidance on the deployment of these gas guns in sensitive areas where they may directly disturb breeding birds. Isn’t that a bit odd? Isn’t it obvious that the deployment of a gas gun bird scarer in proximity to specially protected birds is likely to, er, scare those specially protected birds? Surely this should be subject to a strict licensing regime?

To be fair to SNH, perhaps they had been unaware that these gas guns were being routinely deployed on grouse moors, and so they wouldn’t have thought that there was a necessity to provide guidance? However, that excuse can’t be used any longer because SNH are now well aware that these gas guns are being deployed. As part of their response to the FoI, they sent a copy of an email chain from members of the PAW Scotland Raptor Group (of which SNH is a member) discussing the deployment of these gas guns in Scotland. It really is worth a read – according to SLE CEO Doug McAdam, these guns ‘have been used for a number of years’ and are used to scare away juvenile ravens. Apparently (according to McAdam) this ‘isn’t a raptor issue’ and gas guns are ‘targeted and proportional’ and they ‘seem to have relatively little impact on other species’, although he fails to provide any shred of evidence to support these claims. He then goes on to say there should be an experimental removal of ravens – a suggestion ably slammed by Ian Thomson, Head of RSPB Scotland Investigations.

Read the correspondence here: FoI July 2015 SNH correspondence gas guns on grouse moors last two years

We would argue that SNH, as a matter of urgency, needs to provide official guidance on the deployment of propane gas guns in proximity to Schedule 1 and Schedule 1A birds, as well as their use in SPAs. Without official guidance, it would probably be difficult to secure a successful prosecution [for gas gun related disturbance offences]. This guidance should be relatively easy for SNH to produce – they recently published similar guidance on the use of helicopters and aircraft in relation to disturbance risks to Schedule 1 and Schedule 1A raptors and wider Schedule 1 species (see here). This guidance (which is very informative – well worth a read) indicates that a licence is required for any aerial work in the vicinity of a protected species. When you look at the noise comparison table produced by Purdue University (here), a Bell J-2A helicopter at 100ft is said to emit 100dB of noise; this is considerably less than the 150dB noise of a propane gas gun and so it follows that a licence would also be required for the deployment of a gas gun in the vicinity of a protected species and/or in a protected area.

We’d also argue that Natural England should also produce guidance on the deployment of gas guns, again as a matter of urgency. As evidenced in Mark Avery’s blog, these devices are also being used on the uplands of northern England.

Here are the contact details for SNH and NE, if anyone feels like writing to them to ask when we might expect the publication of such guidance:

Andrew Bachell, Director of Policy & Advice, SNH: Andrew.Bachell@snh.gov.uk

Alan Law, Chief Strategy & Reform Officer, Natural England: alan.law@naturalengland.org.uk

UPDATE 13th September 2015: SNH commits to investigating the deployment of gas guns on grouse moors (see here)

UPDATE 23rd September 2015: Natural England to issue guidance on deployment of gas guns on grouse moors (see here).